6 ms·

Window cleaner in quest to confirm priceless Shakespeare portrait

16 points by rmason 2y ago

bazoom42 2y ago
The article does not make it clear why they think the portrait depicts Shakespeare. I guess you have to watch the tv show for that information? It talks about comparison to other portraits of Shakespeare, but as far as I know there are no depictions of Shakespeare confirmed to have been made in his lifetime.
- milesrout 2y ago
  Yeah that was my thought exactly. It certainly looks like a lot of other so-called depictions of Shakespeare, which are all based on images we know are not images of him but of other people.
  - djur 2y ago
    The Droeshout engraving and the Stratford monument don't fit that description, and they were accepted by Shakespeare's contemporaries.
- lawlorino 2y ago
  Agreed it's not clear from the article, but I think the reason is the similarity to an engraving called the Droeshout portrait [0] > It is one of only two works of art definitively identifiable as a depiction of the poet > ... commentators have used the Droeshout print as a standard by which to judge other portraits alleged to depict Shakespeare. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droeshout_portrait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droeshout_portrait
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
geuis 2y ago
I've never been a fan of classic portraits of people, but by way of watching a lot of Baumgartner restoration videos it's become an interest. A lot apparently goes into establishing the authenticity of portraits. As a conservator, he does a lot of work in the background that isn't always conveyed in the videos. Sometimes the outcome of his restoration efforts is to communicate to the client that the painting is either a copy, or may have history but the subject isn't who they thought it was. No actual comment on this particular story, but the little bit I've learned of the art community is that they put a huge amount of effort into confirming provenance. The history of the painting. So if a lot of experts in the field are raising doubts, it's probably worth examining their statements. Like archaeologists, most want to make a major find. It's career making. But that also requires being highly sceptical of new claims.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  >Baumgartner restoration Other conservators are less than complimentary of him and he deleted the PVA video along with a bunch of others.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
metalman 2y ago
a starting place to help in determining any and all of these sorts of paintings, would be a complete catelog of evererything in existence related including tools, note books,church records,genetic evidence,clothing, all of it. And have at it, a grand and worthy quest, and as has happened many times, the tinyest details can make or break a theory, and it is the fleshing out of those minutia that brings the past back to life, and that imediatecy is what facinates people And to think of the lovely absurdity of this bloke, growing up, with the bard,himeself, looming just there by the telly.,.
wrasee 2y ago
Title: Window cleaner in quest to confirm priceless Shakespeare portrait Later in article: > if it were proven to be the prolific playwright, it could be worth "anywhere from £100m to £200m". Well done BBC. I still remember when you were different.
- rafram 2y ago
  Oh, come on. “Priceless” is never not hyperbole. Everything has a price. But for an average person, 100 million pounds is an unimaginable amount of money. Any object worth that much is essentially priceless.
  - wrasee 2y ago
    I considered that before posting, and I disagree. The Crown Jewels are genuinely priceless. Yes, “priceless” is common hyperbole, but the BBC claim to integrity and quality reporting just made me think that they might consider a more accurate title. We’ve come so far in normalising casual mis-reporting that this argument even needs to be backed up.
    - Xylakant 2y ago
      I don’t think this portrait is any more or less priceless than the Crown Jewels. After all, the Crown Jewels are only a bunch of precious materials that an artist put together and have been associated with importance and uniqueness by (western) human history. Shakespeare is widely regarded as among the important artists in western history, so a genuine historic images would be important to many. Now, people from other cultures may just consider both rubbish and melt down the Crown Jewels for the raw materials - or hang the portrait over their fireplace. Priceless is always in the eye of the beholder.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - wrasee 2y ago
        Right. And if a beholder beholds something with value that simply cannot be captured in a tradeable form (since to have a price implies it is tradable and For Sale) then no price exists for which a trade could exist. It would be literally priceless. I'm surprised I seem to be in the minority in disagreeing with the idea that "everything has a price", as if it's just a matter of finding a number high enough.

16 points by rmason 2y ago

The article does not make it clear why they think the portrait depicts Shakespeare. I guess you have to watch the tv show for that information? It talks about comparison to other portraits of Shakespeare, but as far as I know there are no depictions of Shakespeare confirmed to have been made in his lifetime.

milesrout 2y ago
Yeah that was my thought exactly. It certainly looks like a lot of other so-called depictions of Shakespeare, which are all based on images we know are not images of him but of other people.
- djur 2y ago
  The Droeshout engraving and the Stratford monument don't fit that description, and they were accepted by Shakespeare's contemporaries.
lawlorino 2y ago
Agreed it's not clear from the article, but I think the reason is the similarity to an engraving called the Droeshout portrait [0] > It is one of only two works of art definitively identifiable as a depiction of the poet > ... commentators have used the Droeshout print as a standard by which to judge other portraits alleged to depict Shakespeare. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droeshout_portrait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droeshout_portrait
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

geuis 2y ago

I've never been a fan of classic portraits of people, but by way of watching a lot of Baumgartner restoration videos it's become an interest. A lot apparently goes into establishing the authenticity of portraits. As a conservator, he does a lot of work in the background that isn't always conveyed in the videos. Sometimes the outcome of his restoration efforts is to communicate to the client that the painting is either a copy, or may have history but the subject isn't who they thought it was. No actual comment on this particular story, but the little bit I've learned of the art community is that they put a huge amount of effort into confirming provenance. The history of the painting. So if a lot of experts in the field are raising doubts, it's probably worth examining their statements. Like archaeologists, most want to make a major find. It's career making. But that also requires being highly sceptical of new claims.

throwaway48476 2y ago
>Baumgartner restoration Other conservators are less than complimentary of him and he deleted the PVA video along with a bunch of others.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

metalman 2y ago

a starting place to help in determining any and all of these sorts of paintings, would be a complete catelog of evererything in existence related including tools, note books,church records,genetic evidence,clothing, all of it. And have at it, a grand and worthy quest, and as has happened many times, the tinyest details can make or break a theory, and it is the fleshing out of those minutia that brings the past back to life, and that imediatecy is what facinates people And to think of the lovely absurdity of this bloke, growing up, with the bard,himeself, looming just there by the telly.,.

wrasee 2y ago

Title: Window cleaner in quest to confirm priceless Shakespeare portrait Later in article: > if it were proven to be the prolific playwright, it could be worth "anywhere from £100m to £200m". Well done BBC. I still remember when you were different.

rafram 2y ago
Oh, come on. “Priceless” is never not hyperbole. Everything has a price. But for an average person, 100 million pounds is an unimaginable amount of money. Any object worth that much is essentially priceless.
- wrasee 2y ago
  I considered that before posting, and I disagree. The Crown Jewels are genuinely priceless. Yes, “priceless” is common hyperbole, but the BBC claim to integrity and quality reporting just made me think that they might consider a more accurate title. We’ve come so far in normalising casual mis-reporting that this argument even needs to be backed up.
  - Xylakant 2y ago
    I don’t think this portrait is any more or less priceless than the Crown Jewels. After all, the Crown Jewels are only a bunch of precious materials that an artist put together and have been associated with importance and uniqueness by (western) human history. Shakespeare is widely regarded as among the important artists in western history, so a genuine historic images would be important to many. Now, people from other cultures may just consider both rubbish and melt down the Crown Jewels for the raw materials - or hang the portrait over their fireplace. Priceless is always in the eye of the beholder.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - wrasee 2y ago
      Right. And if a beholder beholds something with value that simply cannot be captured in a tradeable form (since to have a price implies it is tradable and For Sale) then no price exists for which a trade could exist. It would be literally priceless. I'm surprised I seem to be in the minority in disagreeing with the idea that "everything has a price", as if it's just a matter of finding a number high enough.